get_pdf_statusReturn current status of a PDF viewer job. Used internally by the viewer widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | Job ID of the PDF to check. | |
| session_id | No | Session ID of the job. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| pdf_url | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes | ||
| session_status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only status check with schema-covered parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It could potentially mention side effects, but the annotations already cover that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (job_id and session_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning the current status of a PDF viewer job. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'PDF viewer job' distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_upload_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Used internally by the viewer widget' provides clear context about when the tool is intended to be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: uploads are split by context (single, batch, widget), content inspection is split by method (text, images, redaction lines), and password operations are split by state (set vs change). Descriptions explicitly cross-reference to prevent confusion.
All tools start with a verb (upload, check, compare, compress, create, delete, get, list, redact, set, change, view), but the position of 'pdf' varies (suffix in compress_pdf, middle in get_pdf_info) and some names are compound like 'batch_upload_pdf' and 'get_latest_comparison'. Pattern is readable but not perfectly uniform.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool maps to a distinct operation or workflow step in PDF handling. The count feels justified given the breadth of features (upload, compress, delete, password, redact, compare).
The surface covers the core PDF lifecycle: upload, view, compress, delete pages, password protection, redaction, and comparison. Minor gaps exist (no merge, split, or rotate), but the primary workflows are fully supported with mandatory pre/post checks.